[rfc-i] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.32 <name>"

[rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor))]

On 6/22/16 7:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2016, at 1:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-06-22 01:40, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 13 Jun 2016, at 0:37, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-xml2rfc-03.html#rfc.section.2.32>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The name of the section, note, figure, or texttable. This name can
>>>> have flow markup such as to make some characters use a fixed-width
>>>> font, or to include references."
>>>>
>>>> So it allows comments (<cref>), but not, for instance, <em>.
>>>>
>>>> Are we sure that this is the right set of elements to allow?
>>>
>>> As sure as we can be. We know that names will appear in section
>>> headings, and those might be rendered as italics or bold, so allowing
>>> things like <em> will cause surprise. Thus, allowing reference elements
>>> plus <tt> seems like the maximal non-surprising set.
>>
>> Noted, but not convinced.
>>
>> 1) wrt to least surprise: I was surprised that we allow something
>> esoteric like <cref>, but not simple things as <em>.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the allowing <cref> was in response to you.
> 
>> 2) If styling inside an italicized context is the issue: this is
>> trivially solved by styling <em> inside <em> differently. If this was
>> an issue, we'd need to disallow it inside <blockquote> as well...
> 
> That seems much more complicated than simply saying that the only
> styling allowed in <name> is monofont to call out keywords.
> 

It sounds like all the serious issues are dealt with at this point, and
what's left is pretty minor or even simply a matter of personal
preference. I'd like to see this draft posted with the last bits you
worked on, Paul, and declare it stable enough for publication. We will
update this, and all the other drafts, with implementation experience as
we start the production work on the code.

Fair enough?
-Heather